Are libertarians our enemies?

Page 6 of 19 [ 303 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 19 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,138
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

17 May 2015, 12:06 pm

GoonSquad wrote:

RhodyStruggle wrote:

GoonSquad wrote:

What you described in that underlined bit is functionally social darwinism.

How's it survival of the fittest if everyone survives? You seem to be ignoring, or just ignorant of, the fact that libertarians tend to be some of the more prominent supporters of a universal basic income. There's a piece on it practically every other month in Reason. And sure, the pot-smoking Republicans in libertarian drag may be skeptical of something so dirty-hippie-socialist-sounding, but mention Milton Friedman's negative income tax policy (which is functionally equivalent to universal basic income - everyone from billionaires to homeless people gets the same monthly living expenses stipend from the government every month, and only income in excess of that is taxed) and they're all about it.

Be that as it may, you seem to be ignoring or ignorant of the fact that those aren't the sort of libertarians who are apt to gain power or influence public policy.

It's those "Pop/pot Libertarians" that I'm worried about... Also, even the "Maximum freedom, minimum government" ones who run the Libertarian Party website are pretty distressing. If you read their plat form they're all about doing nutty s**t like dismantling the OASDI system and privatizing education--basically rolling social policy back to the 19th century. :roll:

There's a reason why we stopped expecting that family, friends, and charity could adequately address all the social welfare needs in the country. Because we witnessed and finally acknowledged the failure of this approach more than a century ago.

The libertarian party position is absolutely ridiculous.

Right now, I'm finishing a BSW degree and getting ready (hopefully) for grad school. I'm all about finding practical, evidence-based solutions for social problems and I'll be the first to admit that our system needs to be reformed.

BUT, that's it. WE NEED REFORM. We don't need to dismantle or abandon the system.

Speaking of negative income tax, we already have that to a limited degree in the earned income tax credit. I think it's a great approach/solution for supporting BOTH low wage workers AND LOW WAGE EMPLOYERS. It stimulates the economy and promotes positive, productive participation in society/the economy.

Here's the problem... Modern "pop libertarians" don't really seem to give a s**t about programs like this and they certainly don't want to pay taxes to support it.

The main message I hear from "pop libertarians" goes something like "taxes are theft! leave me alone and let me do my thing while you do yours!" While this may sound like a fine idea, let me say once again, functionally, it translates to social darwinism.

So, if you're a libertarian who supports some kind of universal income, etc., I'm certainly willing to concede that you aren't a social darwinist. However, you need to realize that your position is not likely to have much influence on the majority of modern American Libertarian/Republican/Randian/Right wingers who dominate half of American politics.

Also, as a social scientist, I gotta say, universal basic income will never, ever, ever, happen in the United States. However, a libertarian dismantling of the social safetynet is a real possibility in the next few decades, and that would hurt a lot of vulnerable, innocent people (like many who frequent this forum).

If they dismantle it...and I still cannot find a job to support myself, then I suppose I can kiss my life as a mostly law abiding citizen good bye.

About this Universal income though, in theory it sounds nice....but then who would decide what amount the income is? Would it be enough to cover basic costs of living and still leave some left over for any leisure time, hobbies or recreation? Or would it be barely enough to even feed yourself let alone afford shelter....those things would certainly have to be figured out. I personally figure it would work better the first way...having an income where you can live comfortably if its the other way than it would still be a system designed to make life as hard as possible for those who are struggling in an attempt to push them into the 'work force' based on the flawed theory that if someone is poor its most likely because they're refusing to work.

_________________
Eat the rich, feed the poor. No not literally idiot, cannibalism is gross.

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,138
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

17 May 2015, 12:12 pm

Magneto wrote:

Simples. Cost the limit of price. The cost, in a free market, of providing food and shelter, is a lot lower than it is when you add in state interventions to hold vast tracts of land out of use, grant them to their buddies, prevent people from building on them, dictate how you're allowed to build your house, regulate food production to favour their buddies, add taxes to make sure people don't have as much money to pay for things...

A free market is not existing arrangements minus some regulations and all welfare...

I don't know about that...its likely if I move I will have to pay at least 400 in rent if not more, with room-mates or a room-mate, unless I go through subsidized housing. Seems like privately owned residences have plenty Landlords willing to charge steep prices.....if that caused them to loose money like people not renting or moving out then they would lower costs. But if they're still making the money they want, charging steep prices why would they lower their rent just because there are people on the streets due to the steep prices if there are still plenty who can pay?

In a completely free market what is to be done in that situation? someone like me would really be with even less options since there would be no option for subsidized housing or anything like that to combat that. I just do not trust a free market system with no checks and balances would really make everything more affordable for the general public. But I could be wrong.

_________________
Eat the rich, feed the poor. No not literally idiot, cannibalism is gross.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

17 May 2015, 12:35 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

Sweetleaf wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

What do you mean Libertarians? Are you arguing the party platform? I don't understand. The are dickish people of every political persuasion, liberal/conservative/communist/green/whatever. You seem to be confusing the ultradogma of Objectivism with the vague notion that we as individuals are entitled to liberty, to say "libertarians all believe in X, Y, and Z" is just wrong. It is not a religion. When you meet one libertarian, you've met exactly one libertarian and good luck getting two to agree on everything for the same reasons. As such, the movement is pretty fractious and can explain the success the Libertarian Party has had in accomplishing nothing. I don't really care for labels or political parties, I'll lend my support to whoever passes whatever threshold I've set in that election. I don't believe in things because they're considered right of left wing, some my views can be seen as very conservative and some can be seen as radically liberal so its not something I try to get pigeonholed into

There is a difference between idealistic vacuum-sealed perfect world positions in an academic discussion where you may be trying to be provocative and pragmatic political beliefs about policy if you were to gain that power that moment. Kind of like how some on the left can look towards certain aspect of the idea of communism as noble where as at the same time not advocating the violent revolution and state coercion that came along with the communist dictatorships of the 20th century. So yeah, if you ask if I think the idea that taxation is theft then I would probably say yes but to try to make the leap from there to the idea that I am some radical Social Darwinist that thinks that you specifically should die in the streets because of that couldn't be anything further from the truth at least for me since I am in the same boat as a lot you folks here as far as the struggle goes.

Well if government policy changes to honor the belief that taxation is theft....what would you propose to replace the social safety network that is funded by taxes? Are there any other avenues of providing such aid aside from government assistance and charity? because charity alone would leave many people starving in the streets regardless of if you personally wish that fate on anyone or not. Unless of course society and the entire system where drastically changed to such an extent to entirely eliminate poverty in the first place.

The question you ask about the social safety net is like a question asked about what life would be in a perfect communist society, it doesn't exist and never will until society fundamentally changes so no I don't advocate that the entire government shut its doors tomorrow. The services for the truly needy aren't a big concern for me as far as government spending goes, I would focus more on the evil things our country does like the whole prison and military industrial complex. I think there is probably an argument on how effective such and such welfare expenditure is and whether or not it has any undesired consequences, fraud on an individual level probably doesn't usually amount to that much and is inherent in any system like that. There is a lot of waste in the bureaucracy and we may just be better off with direct redistribution instead of all these government programs, cut the middle man out.

But then wouldn't direct re-distribution cause even more bitter-ness towards those on government assistance?

FWIW Milton Friedman proposed a negative income tax which would basically create a progressive tax system in where those above a certain level would be pay a tax and those below it would receive a payment up to that level without owing any tax with all other forms of welfare being eliminated. There would be one monthly check that covered everything. Believe it or not but Nixon actually toyed with this idea but his presidency went down in flames before any serious proposal ever came about.

As for bitterness, I dunno but right now it seems clear the War On Poverty has been a failure and that these huge government programs and the bureaucracies that go along with them do not work in eliminating anything and creates a people that dependent on a growing powerful government. Once the money has been taken from the taxpayer, there really isn't any difference to them as far direct or indirect redistribution goes so if it has to exist then it is better that it goes directly to the truly needy than get lost in some inefficient bureaucracy that doesn't really help people anyways. This would allow the poor to participate in the market rather operating outside of it with government vouchers and subsidies or whatever, it would allow competition in social services to the client end rather than the state which is more concerned about their bottom line than your personal welfare.

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,138
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

17 May 2015, 1:27 pm

Magneto wrote:

How do you know that if we don't have an entirely free market? Of course what you describe likely does drive up the costs, but not sure all state interventions can be described as holding vast tracts of land out of use, grant them to their buddies, prevent people from building on them, dictate how you're allowed to build your house, regulate food production to favor their buddies, add taxes to make sure people don't have as much money to pay for things. But that all sounds like corruption, and much of the time corporate/wealthy elitist lobbyists play a major role, more or less pulling the strings....how would an entirely free market system stop those people from doing essentially the same thing you describe. Also even then what of people that are still unable to afford their basic necessities? Once again there would be the issue of insufficient charity and family/friends being the only option to turn to for help...unless of course there is that universal basic income, but that would have to actually correlate with current living costs. Though how would this universal basic income be created in an entirely free market system anyways?

_________________
Eat the rich, feed the poor. No not literally idiot, cannibalism is gross.

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,138
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

17 May 2015, 1:36 pm

Jacoby wrote:

It is true the current system to deal with poverty is in shambles at best...so it certainly needs to be entirely re-worked and changed. Perhaps that sort of system would work, the only bit I'd still be concerned with is the lack of guarantee of social services should those provided by private companies or whatever turn out insufficient or aren't widely available enough to reach significant portions of the poor. Just not sure all forms of government regulation could effectively be removed without running the risk of leaving people with no real options should the more free-market model fail. Basically who would ensure the monthly check remains enough to cover everything? Or things like unexpected medical bills, I imagine our medical care system would also need a lot of overhaul to bring down costs as well. It seems at least for a time there'd have to be some form of a back up social safety net, certainly not one designed like the current one...to much bureaucracy, I guess is the word for it that and stagnation as well as taking a long time to get anything done the jokes about the 5 hour lines waiting at the EBT office are true. But aside from those concerns it seems a potentially workable idea.

_________________
Eat the rich, feed the poor. No not literally idiot, cannibalism is gross.

KaylamiYarne
Sea Gull

Joined: 8 May 2015
Posts: 204

17 May 2015, 1:38 pm

Sweetleaf, which definition of communism and/or socialism are you advocating (assuming you are at all--I apologize if I misunderstood)? There seems to be many on the several online dictionaries I looked at.

As an aside, there is also a political philosophy called libertarian socialism, and another called anarchist communism. I came across them a few minutes ago while reading up on the different systems we're speaking of. Really interesting, I didn't know they existed Maybe you're more familiar with those?

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

17 May 2015, 1:42 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

Magneto wrote:

It's hard to say what things would be like, life would be much different. How much homelessness would there be if people were allowed to employ themselves and build their own shelters free from government intervention? You can't really apply current real life scenarios to some far off utopian idea, I could go give some long winded explanation as to why everything should work out and be better but how things work on paper isn't necessarily how it will in real life and what do words mean without action anyways? Not much. So in the real world if you ask me about housing you'll probably find me agreeing with you more than you might imagine.

I just moved out of subsidized place, that specific building I didn't want to stay as it was comically small and did not respect your privacy but I wasn't able to find an available apartment in one anywhere else I wanted to live tho so I had to move in with my brother in some trailer park which is actually pretty nice since it is basically your own house but its nearly double what I was paying before. All of the subsidized places had pretty large wait lists and they don't really follow those in order since they assume people that applied months ago have already found housing, you basically have to be lucky and come in right when that place becomes available it seems. It was pretty frustrating since some of these newer buildings are nicer than anything else I could of got anywhere else, the reality is that the demand for affordable housing far far exceeds the supply. Another frustrating thing is that I guess a lot of these are what you call tax credit buildings so while they might be an apartment available it might not be the cheapest price since only a certain number of them are that even tho they might be 100% the same apartment.

KaylamiYarne
Sea Gull

Joined: 8 May 2015
Posts: 204

17 May 2015, 1:48 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

I'm concerned about the medical system as well; there's no way I would be able to afford expenses if I, say, unexpectedly broke my leg. I also have little hope of living independently without at least a life partner helping foot the basic costs of living. However, I think that has more to do with my no-education upbringing than with my mental struggles. So I support free education for children who can't afford it as well as teachers being paid for their work; I will gladly pay taxes if it means free school for the more unfortunate.
The idea of an entirely free market scares me; that's why I lean towards minimum government regulation (protecting individuals from fraud, unfair treatment, abuse, etc.) instead of complete abolishment of the government. It would still be, by definition, a free market, but with the retainment of justice.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

17 May 2015, 2:08 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

Rural access to services is a problem now. I'm thinking that giving the client the power of the purse as opposed to the state in seeking services seems better at serving their interests than if the government did that on their behalf. These private companies would presumably be competing for your money which the hope would be in lowering prices and better services. I think this same idea could work in education too, give vouchers to all children to attend whatever school they like and you'd have educators competing with each other for this money, the cost per student in our public schools exceeds the tuition of most private schools so what would it hurt to move some of that money around? Obviously there are bumps in the road and tweaks that would have to be made as this is a pretty radical change, I don't think it is politically feasible at this time tho as the current system is far to entrenched at this point.

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

17 May 2015, 3:51 pm

The past century is basically a story of government regulation driving up living standards dramatically. Before we had our current labour laws, we had the horrible conditions of the Victorian era and even the pre- and interwar periods.

The problem with true laissez-faire minarchism (or whatever Magneto is advocating) is that truly free markets aren't actually all that efficient.

For example, Wal-Mart employees can be treated really badly and still be better off than if they went it alone. "Being Wal-Mart" requires a great deal of capital which is inaccessible to most people, particularly during economic downturns. Tell your workers to do 12 hour days for $4 an hour or they'll be out, and during a recession you'll have a long queue of applicants.

There would also be little or no chance of tackling issues such as pollution, deforestation, or climate change. Maybe some people will pay a lot of money to stop those things happening. Maybe everyone with money would rather cut costs, and poor people's livelihoods would be destroyed, or the intrinsic value of nature would be ignored, or bees will go extinct, costing the global economy trillions of dollars a year.

This isn't speculative scaremongering, this is exactly what corporations do when they don't have to deal with regulation - as little as they can get away with. There are some ethical companies, sure, and they might benefit from public goodwill, but there are enough people concerned only with their own bottom line and the invisible hand doesn't correct for it.

Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

17 May 2015, 4:16 pm

One, how much does Walmart rely on the state, both in stopping competition through regulations, and through indirect subsidies that support their large size (making transportation artificially cheap, for example)? In a free market, would a company be able to grow to such a size, or would diseconomies of scale result in most firms having a much smaller size? For a supermarket, I don't think Walmart size is the natural size...

Two, it's mainly been technology that has driven up living standards over the past century, not government intervention. When you look back through history, the state has typically been the one *reducing* living standards - it originated, after all, in warlords farming people for resources. The common saying in libertarianism is, "The state breaks your leg and gives you a crutch".

Third, a free market does not mean you get to impose externalities on everyone else. Property rights don't mean you can pollute the aquifier that your neighbour relies on...

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,192
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

17 May 2015, 4:24 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

KaylamiYarne wrote:

Magneto wrote:

What is it with this bizzare assumption that we've ever had an actual free market...

In a free market, you have to treat your workers well enough that they're better off with you than by setting up on their own. Actually, that's the case anyway, it's just that it's a lot easier for them to set up on their own *when the state is not getting in the way*. It's really quite simple.

As far as welfare goes, how much poverty exists because the state criminalises alternatives? You're also ignoring the extent to which state intervention drives up the cost of living, thus making it a lot easier to slip into poverty.

There is an awful lot of straw in this thread...

Thanks.
Anyone want to see what communism/socialism does, feel free to move to North Korea or Cuba.
Also, libertarian is an umbrella term with different categories, and I don't know which definition a lot of people are going by in this thread, but it's bizzare.

North Korea is a totalitarian regime, not quite sure what Cuba is anymore....but neither are proper examples of socialism or communism, and do not appear to be moving in that direction at all.

For a socialist society that works, look at Sweden.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

17 May 2015, 4:37 pm

Magneto wrote:

Third, a free market does not mean you get to impose externalities on everyone else. Property rights don't mean you can pollute the aquifier that your neighbour relies on...

How do you stop someone from doing it then? I mean if it is truly a free market meaning no regulation, how on earth do you stop said neighbor from trampling on the rights of those around him?

KaylamiYarne
Sea Gull

Joined: 8 May 2015
Posts: 204

17 May 2015, 4:45 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

Sweetleaf wrote:

KaylamiYarne wrote:

Magneto wrote:

North Korea is a totalitarian regime, not quite sure what Cuba is anymore....but neither are proper examples of socialism or communism, and do not appear to be moving in that direction at all.

For a socialist society that works, look at Sweden.

Sweden isn't a socialist society, it's the Nordic model, which according to Wikipedia is also referred to as "Nordic capitalism" or "Nordic social democracy." The oldest and largest political party in Sweden today is the Swedish Social Democratic Party, and the socialists left that party in 1917 to form the Communist Party of Sweden, now known as the Left Party.
A social welfare system doesn't make a country socialist, and Sweden ranks highly in economic competitiveness and protection of civil liberties, which wouldn't exist under true socialism.

KaylamiYarne
Sea Gull

Joined: 8 May 2015
Posts: 204

17 May 2015, 4:53 pm

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/exam ... alism.html

I looked up examples of capitalism, and the link above came up, which lists Sweden as an example of a country employing capitalism. It's a mixed economy.

KaylamiYarne
Sea Gull

Joined: 8 May 2015
Posts: 204

17 May 2015, 5:15 pm

Aristophanes wrote:

Magneto wrote:

Third, a free market does not mean you get to impose externalities on everyone else. Property rights don't mean you can pollute the aquifier that your neighbour relies on...

How do you stop someone from doing it then? I mean if it is truly a free market meaning no regulation, how on earth do you stop said neighbor from trampling on the rights of those around him?

For most people who support free-market economics, free doesn't refer to absolutely no regulation, but instead to government not interfering unless someone is trampling on another's rights. It's limited regulation, not absence of regulation.
It's about the individual setting the prices instead of the government, and supply and demand being controlled by the people instead of the state.

Page 6 of 19 [ 303 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 19 Next

Jump to:

Are libertarians our enemies? Post Reply New Topic

Are libertarians our enemies?